DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I'm lost for words... As of me typing:
MO (not the real deal tonight, just a "beauty contest):
Votes in: 99%
Santorum: 55.2%
Romney: 25.3%
Paul: 12.2%
Gingrich: didn't make the ballot. I'd say that's how Santorum did well except the other 2 states are similar!!
CO (still kinda early, but looking like Santorum will win):
Votes in: 25%
Santorum: 43.3%
Romney: 28.1%
Gingrich: 15.3%
Paul: 13.1%
Looks like Romney and Newt tearing each other to shreds hasn't helped either of them. After every Romney victory, pundits are always saying how "Mitt has the convention in the bag for sure" yada ya, maybe now after the 5th or so time they're wrong, they'll stay silent (doubt it.)
Big loss (IMO) for Romney. Dislike Santorum greatly, but good job on tonight's win. Newt... I think you hit your high water mark in SC, you ain't doing so well now, why does the media keep propping you up as the anti-Romney? Good job Paul in MN--strong showing, the other two states, eh, your usual 10-15% support. I'm still with ya buddy.
Who knows where this race will go now. I have an idea--it's gonna be bloody, costly, unprecedented, and all at the GOP's expense. At this point, I wouldn't blame them if they quit now and started campaigning for 2016! Yikes.
Airstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
As a Minnemasota resident, I am even more stunned. I really hope Romney is the nominee, in no small part because that kind of rhymes, but also because as I see it he is the most electable out of the current GOP miasma.
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3808 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1978 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
Who knows where this race will go now. I have an idea--it's gonna be bloody, costly, unprecedented, and all at the GOP's expense. At this point, I wouldn't blame them if they quit now and started campaigning for 2016! Yikes.
Your words to God's ears! I hope they kill each other. They need to have a volatile convention like the Democrat's disaster in Chicago 1968. However I hope there's none of the rioting on the outside. The GOP is out of touch with most of us working stiffs in the USA. They are the party of the rich 1% elite and the fanatical religious right. Haven't 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of daddy Bush and especially the cluster f**k that were the W years proof that this party and their leaders are toxic to the spirit of our great nation? My Dem's are far from perfect but thank God do not approach the fascism of the GOP.
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5674 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
A bit annoying. Santorum is the last one put of the four I want. Looks like there is a good chance CO goes to Santorum also which is the only big loss Mitt would have tonight. Biggest thing this means I think is a bit harder for Newt but his strategy is to just do decent in Ohio and win in the south. I don't want a long primary but we might get one. Hopefully Romney pulls out on top because he is the only chance the GOP has to get rid of President Obama.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 1): I really hope Romney is the nominee, in no small part because that kind of rhymes, but also because as I see it he is the most electable out of the current GOP miasma.
Quoting flymia (Reply 4): Hopefully Romney pulls out on top because he is the only chance the GOP has to get rid of President Obama.
Honestly, it's looking like an uphill battle for Romney now at only, what, *6* states! You have Gingrich who I think would rather (deep down) have Obama win than Romney... at least that's the way he's acting. So he's clobbering Mitt, and now we have Santorum surging again, so now Romney is going to have to fight through this frothy mess. Plus you have Paul's loyal 10-20% that might have enough power to keep Romney for winning... prepare for a second term for Obama.
This may fall on deaf ears, but for those think Obama is the worst thing ever, try and be a bit more objective... he's probably not as bad as you think. I didn't vote for him in '08 and am probably voting third party in '12, but life is a lot easier for me when I realized that the president is NOT the pinnacle of everything bad/wrong. It is a very polarized America... try not to get sucked into one side or another.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 6): Before the thread descends into partisan sniping can someone explain why they do this, I'm not sure I understand.
I don't know why MO did this (and I believe they are the only state to do this) but they have a vote that doesn't mean anything... they will have a caucus on March 17. So the vote is just there to be there I guess. Like I said, don't know why they did this. They could have done nothing today because they start from scratch on March 17 and do a caucus independent of today's results. Hypothetically, most of the delegates may end up going to Paul or Romney if they do well in the MO caucus
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
The thing is that even in the Reagan era, the GOP was pretty good. OK, some things were done wrong during Reagan, but we had a space program, we were building new infrastructure, people smiled, and our economy was doing well. There were a bunch of problems in the day (war on drugs, gay rights, management of AIDS, environment) but in general, there was business and progress.
Then the GOP got taken over by a bunch of preachers. The trouble with preachers is that they are absolutely convinced that they are right all the time. And they use rhetoric to get what they want. So they get people all riled up about absolute BS on the one end to get people to vote for them (Obama is a Socialist? Come on. Look up "Socialist" in the dictionary!) and on the other hand, accept huge amounts of money from wealthy sponsors.
There needs to be a real conservative party in this country. I'd even vote for it. But not this GOP bullstool. That's not conservative. It's not fascist. It's not communist. It's just nonsensical.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
armitageshanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3315 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
I'm working in Colorado for the winter and it surprises the hell out of me that a republican won here, let alone Santorum. Goes to show you that its never over for a candidate.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 11): I'm working in Colorado for the winter and it surprises the hell out of me that a republican won here, let alone Santorum. Goes to show you that its never over for a candidate.
The places where one is liable to work for the winter are very different than the rural counties that seem to really hate gays more than anything else.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 11): it surprises the hell out of me that a republican won here
......it's the Republican caucus so a Republican should win... (unless I misunderstood your post.)
Technically Obama has won with state's caucus, and has won every previous primary/caucus. Yes, Democrats can still go up against Obama, but they have less of a chance of beating Obama now than Santorum would in November
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36435 posts, RR: 86 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
Rick Santorum?!?!?!?! WHY?
Keep in mind, Minnesota is very unpredictable. They elected Jessie 'The Body' Ventura, Al Franken and Walter Mondale. Anything can happen in Minnesota.
Airstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1804 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): There needs to be a real conservative party in this country.
I've thought about founding something like the Secular Conservative Party. I'm all in favor of lower taxes, free markets, law and order, and states' rights. The Republican party will cry states' rights when, say, a federal court throws out a voter-approved gay marriage ban; saying the Federales are stomping on that state's "freedom." Uhhhhhh-huh...that jibes perfectly with the Republican call for a federal Constitutional amendment banning it, right? Grrrr...silliness.
Then again, I've also thought about founding Airstud University (see earlier post) so maybe my ideas don't totally have wings...
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
So how does the convention decide? Does the presidential candidate have to have an absolute majority? If so, could Gingrich and Santorum unite against Romney?
If you won a primary, but then dropped out of the race, do you get to decide who your "votes" will go to?
StarAC17 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): The Republican party will cry states' rights when, say, a federal court throws out a voter-approved gay marriage ban; saying the Federales are stomping on that state's "freedom." Uhhhhhh-huh...that jibes perfectly with the Republican call for a federal Constitutional amendment banning it, right? Grrrr...silliness.
Funny the GOP probably would be the first to tell said state to get stuffed if they electorate voted to legalize pot. It would probably pass in Cali as well.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): The thing is that even in the Reagan era, the GOP was pretty good. OK, some things were done wrong during Reagan, but we had a space program, we were building new infrastructure, people smiled, and our economy was doing well. There were a bunch of problems in the day (war on drugs, gay rights, management of AIDS, environment) but in general, there was business and progress.
But you see St. Reagan would be seen as a commie by the eyes of today's GOP, ironically he oversaw (he didn't cause) the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do I dare say even Bush looks liberal to some of these tea-baggers.
In all seriousness this wing of the GOP has always existed but now it controls the party but in the 80's and 90's they were the fringe wing of the party. This is why they think that Obama is so liberal (he has governed like a centrist) and socialist because they are so far to the right that in their heads it looks that way. If you want to see a leftist president then elect Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich
TOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5203 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
I'm just curious -- what is it about Santorum do people find good. He's TERRIBLE and has no chance of beating Obama.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
This may fall on deaf ears, but for those think Obama is the worst thing ever, try and be a bit more objective... he's probably not as bad as you think.
He's pretty horrible actually. After he took away those 5th amendment rights silently on JAN 01 (to which the media didn't report on because they wanted to protect their savior). Any republican has my vote over him.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 5701 posts, RR: 27 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19): After he took away those 5th amendment rights silently on JAN 01 (to which the media didn't report on because they wanted to protect their savior). Any republican has my vote over him.
You realize virtually all the Republicans will do the same and more.
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19): I'm just curious -- what is it about Santorum do people find good.
He plays the role that those on the far right want him to play. He's an extreme social conservative and he pretends that he wants less government. Of course, when he was in Congress he seemed to have no problem guzzling down Federal pork like there was no tomorrow. But that is the hypocrisy of most conservatives these days.
TOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5203 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20):
You realize virtually all the Republicans will do the same and more.
Only Romney said he would have done the same. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul disagreed with Obama's stance.
CASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21): Only Romney said he would have done the same. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul disagreed with Obama's stance.
Just don't vote.
The Bill was passed by the senate and House. All the parties agreed on in.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): I've thought about founding something like the Secular Conservative Party. I'm all in favor of lower taxes, free markets, law and order, and states' rights.
It's called the Libertarian Party, and they are the largest third party I believe. Gary Johnson (loved by many) is trying to get the LP's nomination. I'd check him out: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
You know those Republicans that could care less about social issues, and the Democrats that think the Republicans are religious fanatics but agree with much of the Republican's fiscal policy? Well these people are more or less Libertarians, and they make up a surprisingly large chunk of the population. Unfortunately, the 2 party system that has a hold on us pretty much forces everyone into one party or another. That's why I hope the Libertarian party does well, but of course, it won't because so many Republicans think that Satan will rise if Obama gets reelected. Oh well, at least consider the LP...
Quoting Centre (Reply 16): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
prepare for a second term for Obama.
And what's wrong with that?
Isn't that obvious? I mean if you're left leaning, nothing. If you're right leaning, then it's having a candidate you don't like being elected again. Go back to 2004, did you want GWB reelected? That's how the right feels about Obama in 2012.
You realize virtually all the Republicans will do the same and more.
Only Romney said he would have done the same. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul disagreed with Obama's stance.
I'd like to see a source on that. I mean, I'm sure they had differences, but I'd see Santorum, Newt, and Mitt doing something very similar. I mean these guys are the ones that seem so gung ho about taking out Iran, and unlike Obama who at least campaigned to shut down Gitmo, end the wars, and repeal the Patriot Act, these 3 openly support them.
Only Paul and Gary Johnson would end these (or try to get Congress to.) Many say that would make America less safe... I agree that it would IF we continue our foreign policy the way it is. Our foreign policy, it creates terrorism which in turn requires us to have the Patriot Act and body scanners at all, but remove the causes of terrorism and you can in turn remove the reactionary measures to terrorism...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1545 times:
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19): He's pretty horrible actually. After he took away those 5th amendment rights silently on JAN 01 (to which the media didn't report on because they wanted to protect their savior). Any republican has my vote over him.
Um... if the media didn't report on it, then why did we all hear about it?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23): t's called the Libertarian Party, and they are the largest third party I believe.
Libertarians are not really Conservative. It's something entirely different. Libertarianism, at least the version espoused by the Libertarian party, borders on all-out anarchy with roads and police. To put it in perspective, the Libertarian party would like to abolish the FAA and leave it to the free market.
I can see the ads now: "Come fly United! We've only had three mid-air collisions this year!"
As I've heard it described: "Libertarians are really just rich people who want roads and cops to help them protect their riches."
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 25, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
I suppose you have a point. Still 100x better than what we have now IMO. Both parties have kinda merged into a big-government conglomerate, it's a mess
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 28, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26): Sorry, but what did Obama do in January 01? At that time G.W. Bush was President elect and Bill Clinton still in office.
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5326 posts, RR: 22 Reply 29, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5): This may fall on deaf ears, but for those think Obama is the worst thing ever, try and be a bit more objective... he's probably not as bad as you think. I didn't vote for him in '08 and am probably voting third party in '12, but life is a lot easier for me when I realized that the president is NOT the pinnacle of everything bad/wrong. It is a very polarized America... try not to get sucked into one side or another
VERY intelligent post, thank you. I did not like the W years, but hey, I survived......if Oblablah wins, you will too !
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6974 posts, RR: 31 Reply 31, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 30): Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
not IN January 2001, but ON January 1st - American date format
Gagh, he wrote *on" January 01. Sorry and thanks, I am tired and it shows.
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 19): He's pretty horrible actually. After he took away those 5th amendment rights silently on JAN 01 (to which the media didn't report on because they wanted to protect their savior).
What DATE on Jan. 2001 did this happen? Prior to Jan. 20, 2001; President Clinton was still in office
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 32, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 31): What DATE on Jan. 2001 did this happen? Prior to Jan. 20, 2001; President Clinton was still in office
It wasn't in 2001. The poster meant the 1st of January (of this year) and is talking about the NDAA. Jan 1st 2012 = Obama in office
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 33, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21): Only Romney said he would have done the same. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul disagreed with Obama's stance.
It's very easy for them to say so, except Gingrich also said that he would ignore the courts on issues he didn't like, including decisions relating to national security.
Second, Obama is responsible, but his alternative was to veto the entire bill, which would have meant shutting down the military. He signed it with a "statement" saying that he would not be using that segment. Remember, he would not have had that bill to sign had the House and Senate not sent him that bill, so let's not lump all the blame in one place.
Third, what he SHOULD have done is rounded up Congress and put them in a holding center, incommunicado, and informed them that they were the first victims of their own law. Let them stew a bit and then let them go with a warning that this exercise will be repeated until the law is repealed. (OK, he probably couldn't have gotten away with it, but it would have been really funny).
StarAC17 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 34, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): Second, Obama is responsible, but his alternative was to veto the entire bill, which would have meant shutting down the military. He signed it with a "statement" saying that he would not be using that segment. Remember, he would not have had that bill to sign had the House and Senate not sent him that bill, so let's not lump all the blame in one place.
Had he vetoed it it would have gone back to congress and probably obtained veto proof majorities (if it didn't have those already) making the veto moot anyways.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): It's very easy for them to say so, except Gingrich also said that he would ignore the courts on issues he didn't like, including decisions relating to national security.
Can you guys elect him with the promise he does just that and then toss his @$$ in jail. .
Seriously though can you sound more dictator like than that.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 35, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5): and now we have Santorum surging again
Yuck. Santorum surges just make a real mess of things.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 14): Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 11):
I'm working in Colorado for the winter and it surprises the hell out of me that a republican won here,
?????
It's a Republican caucus.
What's more telling is the low turnout. That doesn't bode well for the general election.
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21): Only Romney said he would have done the same. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul disagreed with Obama's stance.
The only one I believe on that is Paul. Santorum and Gingrich have no problem whatsoever with big government, so long as it's doing things that they want. They'd have signed that bill into law too, especially since it came bundled in a larger military spending bill, which it would look very bad (i.e. anti-military) to veto.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 36, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Yuck. Santorum surges just make a real mess of things.
Quoting Mir (Reply 35): The only one I believe on that is Paul.
Well, duh. He has principles. Thus, he will never get elected.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 37, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 34):
Can you guys elect him with the promise he does just that and then toss his @$$ in jail. .
The trouble is that nowhere does the Constitution actually say that the President (or Congress) has to do what the Judiciary say. It is by tradition that the opinions of the court are followed.
It is my opinion that this is a GAPING HOLE in the Constitution. I am just waiting for a single party to control both the legislative and executive branches and then decide to crown the President "Supreme Dictator for Life." Of course it's unconstitutional, but who is to stop them short of a military coup?
ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3230 posts, RR: 26 Reply 38, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
So anyway. Yes it was a good "show" for Santorum...but in the grand scheme it was about as meaningful as a Republican winning Oklahoma in November.
Missouri - had ZERO delegates awarded last night and they are NOT tied to the voters decision yesterday. They are unpledged and will be decided during county conventions in March.
Minnesota awarded a whopping 6 delegates.
Colorado was really the only good state for Santorum to win with 17 delegates.
Now it can get pretty significant if this builds momentum for Santorum into Super Tuesday and primaries that actually award larger amounts of delegates. As of right now, Romney is still firmly in control at 115. Gingrich has 38, Santorum is now at 34, and Paul has 20.
Is Santorum a new front runner? No. Does he get momentum? Maybe. However we have a long way to go to get to Super Tuesday.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 39, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 38):
Is Santorum a new front runner? No. Does he get momentum? Maybe. However we have a long way to go to get to Super Tuesday.
You're correct. But you have to admit that this is starting to run more like a reality TV show than a major national party primary.
As AKiss said on Facebook this morning: "This is reaching a Japanese Game Show level of 'WTF?'."
TOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5203 posts, RR: 10 Reply 40, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): Third, what he SHOULD have done is rounded up Congress and put them in a holding center, incommunicado, and informed them that they were the first victims of their own law. Let them stew a bit and then let them go with a warning that this exercise will be repeated until the law is repealed. (OK, he probably couldn't have gotten away with it, but it would have been really funny).
Obama has never been able to wrangle up congress for any cause. The polarization of big government continues.
He could have vetoed it, he should have vetoed it, he even said "well I don't agree with it, but I'll sign off it on anyway." It was a horrible decision and the military would definitely not have been shut down as a result.
Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Santorum and Gingrich have no problem whatsoever with big government, so
Simply put the question was asked during one of the debates and Romney said he would have signed off on it, the other three said it was a terrible decision and would have never signed it. I'm telling you, even Santorum said he would have never signed off on it.
Of course, he picks one of the least objectionable things about Santorum to rail against. I was hoping for some sort of "the guy's a nutcase, and trust me when I say that because I too am a nutcase, and I know nutcases" speech. But oh well.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36): He has principles. Thus, he will never get elected.
I wouldn't want to see him get elected either, because I think many of his principles, while well-intentioned, aren't really in touch with the reality of the modern world. But I can at least respect that he has them and he stands by them.
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 40): Simply put the question was asked during one of the debates and Romney said he would have signed off on it, the other three said it was a terrible decision and would have never signed it. I'm telling you, even Santorum said he would have never signed off on it.
I don't doubt that he said it. I just think he was being disingenuous.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 42, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 41): I don't doubt that he said it. I just think he was being disingenuous.
It's easy to say what you would have done when you're campaigning. It's another thing to do it when you're the President.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 43, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1107 times:
The more and more I hear Santorum speak, the more liberal I become. Look at this latest article:
I'd read it, it's pretty heartless even for the right nowadays. At least the other candidates explain how big business helps people out. Here is a quote from Santorum:
"People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad," Santorum said, ABC News reported. "But paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with - it keeps you alive. Why? Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."
He's talking to a mother with a kid with schizophrenia, and the mediation costs ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year. He's basically saying the mother should be happy the drug company is producing these drugs. Read the article, it's shocking IMO!
Now just stop and think about this a minute. I wasn't around for Reagan but I heard some things about him. He is the idol for 95% of Republicans. Would Reagan be 100% committed to big businesses/big pharma/insurance companies like so many Republicans are today, or would he use a little bit of common sense?? Did Reagan never break from the party lines and did he refuse to compromise in any way with the left?
I am all for businesses being thriving and healthy and having a pro-business country, but big business is not my God, they can do wrong, and even if better healthcare is now a "liberal" idea, sign me up. I can't believe this is what has become of the Republican platform. Unbudging, unrealistic, and if you suggest anything that might fix these problems, you're dubbed a socialist. UGH. Fail Santorum!
Edit: That all said, I still consider myself slightly right of center. The GOP is dragging the right so far I think the "center" is going to pass right over me and I'll be half-way liberal soon!
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3808 posts, RR: 13 Reply 44, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20): He plays the role that those on the far right want him to play. He's an extreme social conservative and he pretends that he wants less government. Of course, when he was in Congress he seemed to have no problem guzzling down Federal pork like there was no tomorrow. But that is the hypocrisy of most conservatives these days.
I've heard rumors that Santorum has/had Mob ties.
Quoting Mir (Reply 35): The only one I believe on that is Paul. Santorum and Gingrich have no problem whatsoever with big government, so long as it's doing things that they want. They'd have signed that bill into law too, especially since it came bundled in a larger military spending bill, which it would look very bad (i.e. anti-military) to veto.
Isn't it the GOP way of operating?
Sometimes I feel the GOP covertly models itsrelf after the Taliban. We survived the W debacle but barley. We are now the has been paper tiger joke across much of the world. The GOP trumpets get government off our backs but it sure as hell grew during St. President Pruneface (Reagan's 8 years) and of course during the 8 years of Heir Bush. The GOP idea of less govrernment is to let big business do what it pleases but try to legislate and micro manage what we do in our own homes. For a fetus the GOP rules for most middle and lower income Americans they are anything but your friend. They like to strengthen the power of the FCC, get in your bedroom and pander fear and division amongst us. Hey if that's your bag then by all means go GOP.
Donald Trump shares my thoughts exactly!
That is what I thought when he first declared his candidacy. There really is no reason to look in to various reasons to rail against him. A two-term Senator shouldn't lose by 19% and then expect to be taken seriously for another office. The voters of Pennsylvania told Rick Santorum to find a new line of work back in 2006.
The man can't seem to take a hint.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 46, posted (3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1044 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37): I am just waiting for a single party to control both the legislative and executive branches and then decide to crown the President "Supreme Dictator for Life."
Reading The Dark Side by Jane Mayer has the potential to trigger the thought that the G.W. Bush administration tried to do exactly that as far as dealing with "unlawful combatants" was concerned - so it wasn't about becoming a "Dictator", let alone "for life", but it was about circumventing congress, courts and public discussions.
A while back, I asked the question why environmental issues, including oil dependency are on the back burner It was merely a comprehension question, not the attempt to meddle with U.S. affairs. The (predictable) answer was that economical issues such as (un-)employment were absolutely predominant. While I don't see how one would separate economical from ecological issues, I think I did understand the response.
Since the economical situation now seems to improve, a candidate is gaining ground who, of all issues imaginable, stands for Christian and family values - however he may interpret those values. I think that's amazing.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 47, posted (3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1025 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43): "People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad," Santorum said, ABC News reported. "But paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with - it keeps you alive. Why? Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."
He missed out on the fact that it's $900 per month. I'll agree with him that if you can afford to buy yourself a new iPad every month, you should probably be covering your own health insurance. I don't know anyone who does that, however.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, RR: 25 Reply 48, posted (3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 996 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 45): That is what I thought when he first declared his candidacy. There really is no reason to look in to various reasons to rail against him. A two-term Senator shouldn't lose by 19% and then expect to be taken seriously for another office. The voters of Pennsylvania told Rick Santorum to find a new line of work back in 2006.
Well not to defend the candidate I like the least, but I thought that when he was booted out, PA as a whole booted out a LOT of Republicans... it was a bloody year for all of them, Santorum just so happened to have the worst numbers. Doesn't help his cause out that much, but it kinda does.
My biggest thing is how unrealistic his is. He's scared of even appearing a little bit "left" so he's the extreme pro-business anti-free health care at all. I think government should stay out more or less, but NO ONE should have to pay $1 million a year. Now I don't know if her insurance covers that, or how long she can keep the kid on insurance, but I doubt it's adequate enough...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 49, posted (3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 898 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 45): That is what I thought when he first declared his candidacy. There really is no reason to look in to various reasons to rail against him. A two-term Senator shouldn't lose by 19% and then expect to be taken seriously for another office. The voters of Pennsylvania told Rick Santorum to find a new line of work back in 2006.
Rick! Rick! He’s our man! If he can’t do it…….oh, crap.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 50, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 816 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43): The more and more I hear Santorum speak, the more liberal I become. Look at this latest article:
No, the more DEMOCRAT you become, because the Democrats may have some stupid ideas, but not nearly this stupid.
You cannot call the GOP "Right-Wing" anymore. They have fallen right off the political spectrum into some bizarre mix of theocratic totalitarianism with fundamentalist patriotism and free-market wherein businesses have no rules, but individuals are inundated with them. There is an obsession with national security and military might to the point to the expense of all other government functions. Otherwise, the government should be dismantled.
This is not Conservatism. This is absolute idiocy.
Centre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 775 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50): You cannot call the GOP "Right-Wing" anymore. They have fallen right off the political spectrum into some bizarre mix of theocratic totalitarianism with fundamentalist patriotism and free-market wherein businesses have no rules, but individuals are inundated with them. There is an obsession with national security and military might to the point to the expense of all other government functions. Otherwise, the government should be dismantled.
This is not Conservatism. This is absolute idiocy.
The fall of Rome.
It always happen from within.
Luckily, there is History that we can read, understand and relate to.
Now adays, there is never too late.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 52, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 746 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50): You cannot call the GOP "Right-Wing" anymore. They have fallen right off the political spectrum into some bizarre mix of theocratic totalitarianism with fundamentalist patriotism and free-market wherein businesses have no rules, but individuals are inundated with them. There is an obsession with national security and military might to the point to the expense of all other government functions. Otherwise, the government should be dismantled.
This is not Conservatism. This is absolute idiocy.
Agreed, which is why the GOP does not adopt ANY of the positions you describe. It's hard to debate with someone who is so detached from reality as to believe pink elephants are jumping his fence. Totalitarianism? No rules? Dismantlement?
Oh, brother...
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 53, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 54, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 684 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 53): That's not being detached from reality?
Congrats, you just placed yourself on the same level as the Birthers by your own admission. Have a nice day.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 55, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 677 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Congrats, you just placed yourself on the same level as the Birthers by your own admission. Have a nice day.
Not sure how you end up at that conclusion.but - as the kids say "Whatevs,",..
Funny how you only single out Birtheres (which include Donald Trump - endorser of Mitt Romney). Do you think that they are crazy? You must because you use them as part of your "insult"
What about all the groups that call Obama a communist/socialist/ etc? Following your (twisted) logic should be on the same level as them as well. Right? So who calls Obama a Communist and a Socialist?
CASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 1 Reply 56, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 668 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54): Congrats, you just placed yourself on the same level as the Birthers by your own admission. Have a nice day.
Wow,
Not sure what I missed, but to throw out that kind of statement, you either aren't reading his post, or you are trying to prove Doc's point is correct?
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50): This is not Conservatism. This is absolute idiocy.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 609 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50): They have fallen right off the political spectrum into some bizarre mix of theocratic totalitarianism with fundamentalist patriotism and free-market wherein businesses have no rules, but individuals are inundated with them
I love that description, but I'm not so sure about it being a recent phenomenon. I wasn't old enough to follow politics greatly 20 years ago, but this Carlin quote was from 1988:
Quote: Keep in mind these Reagan people were the ones that were going to get government off our backs. Remember that? That was the rhetoric of the 1980 campaign: 'We'll get government off your back and out of your lives.' Yeah, but they want to tell you what magazines you can read, and they still want to tell you what rock lyrics you can listen to, and they still want to force your kids to pray in school, and they still want to tell you what you can say on the radio!
As far as I can tell, it's been the same story for a long time.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 58, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 570 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): Agreed, which is why the GOP does not adopt ANY of the positions you describe. I
Really? Have you not read their national platform lately? Have you not see their behavior lately?
Sometimes I wonder if you live in a parallel universe.
Totalitarianism: "I will ignore the courts when they become judicial activists." -Newt Gingrich In other words, there is no check on the President's power. Outright bans on personal and private behavior including consensual homosexual sex, birth control (Santorum supports an outright ban and he's been doing well in the primaries lately), pornography, and other private behaviors. Ensure that there is no democratic remedy to complete Republican control through massive voter disenfranchisement schemes in the name of "preventing election fraud," a crime so rare that there were fewer than 100 cases in the last election.
No commercial regulation: Relax safety rules, remove such luxuries as allowing your workers to have a lunch break, gut food safety laws, allow companies to pollute without restriction, etc.
Dismantlement: Dismantling the Interstate Highway System, every single interior department including national parks, public education, public health, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, but those are just "other" Republicans, right? They don't count. They're only the front runners in the Presidential primaries...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 59, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 560 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Really? Have you not read their national platform lately? Have you not see their behavior lately?
I read it, and while I don't agree with the whole thing, I don't see the stuff you are wound up about.
Have YOU read it?
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Totalitarianism: "I will ignore the courts when they become judicial activists." -Newt Gingrich In other words, there is no check on the President's power
Utter horsecookies. Courts should apply the law, period. If the law is mute on a point, the court should stay silent except to call on the Legislature to fill in the oversight. It should not make it up, in our common law system where a judge's decision made in a vacuum, suddenly has the power of precedent, and essentially assumes as much the force of law as a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. It is not the Court's job to write laws.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Outright bans on personal and private behavior including consensual homosexual sex, birth control
I have not heard anyone talk about making homosexuality or birth control illegal. Please provide a source.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Ensure that there is no democratic remedy to complete Republican control through massive voter disenfranchisement schemes in the name of "preventing election fraud," a crime so rare that there were fewer than 100 cases in the last election.
In 2009, there were 116,000 dead eligible voters in Massachusetts. If you don't have to show some ID, you could simply claim to be one of them. If you really want to preserve the integrity of our elections (and I do not believe that you do), then how can you stand against the very simple and non-discriminatory means of asking for an ID at the polls. Everyone has ID. Most states will even give you one for free. All you have to do is get off your ass.
Yeah, ‘cuz there are gonna be a lotta kids ridin’ in a million dollar sports car. Most people who buy one of these either don’t have kids or have several other cars they use when they plan to drive with kids. These are cars men buy to drive fast and in which to pick up chicks. They are cars that broadcast mid-life crises or inadequate junk in the trunk. They aren’t cars that ever involve babies, toddlers, or young kids. Anyone who thinks otherwise just isn’t living in the real world and doesn’t have any common sense.
Could list hundreds, if not thousands of examples given some time. Can you honestly say that no federal safety regulations are stupid or overly-stringent?
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): remove such luxuries as allowing your workers to have a lunch break,
c'mon, you're on a roll here. Next you'll be saying Conservatives want to execute all liberals.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): Dismantlement: Dismantling the Interstate Highway System, every single interior department including national parks, public education, public health, etc. etc. etc.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 5701 posts, RR: 27 Reply 60, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 506 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59): They are cars that broadcast mid-life crises or inadequate junk in the trunk. They aren’t cars that ever involve babies, toddlers, or young kids.
Except the advanced air-bag system also applies to small adults, so if you've got a petite little girlfriend/wife/mistress during your mid-life crisis, it protects them too. And trust me, some dude would eventually put their kid in the car when his ex-wife nags him to pick up the kids. I've seen small children getting out of a Ferrari before.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59): Anyone who thinks otherwise just isn’t living in the real world and doesn’t have any common sense.
No. It's about making safety regulations based on research and fact....not on pop culture beliefs like you are doing.
CASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 1 Reply 61, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 486 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59): In 2009, there were 116,000 dead eligible voters in Massachusetts. If you don't have to show some ID, you could simply claim to be one of them. If you really want to preserve the integrity of our elections (and I do not believe that you do), then how can you stand against the very simple and non-discriminatory means of asking for an ID at the polls. Everyone has ID. Most states will even give you one for free. All you have to do is get off your ass.
So you believe people are not honest, and therefore Governement must regulate them . You are making a great argument for business regulations and governemnt intrusion, with the extension of your belief in people's general dishonesty.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59): Yeah, ‘cuz there are gonna be a lotta kids ridin’ in a million dollar sports car. Most people who buy one of these either don’t have kids or have several other cars they use when they plan to drive with kids. These are cars men buy to drive fast and in which to pick up chicks. They are cars that broadcast mid-life crises or inadequate junk in the trunk. They aren’t cars that ever involve babies, toddlers, or young kids. Anyone who thinks otherwise just isn’t living in the real world and doesn’t have any common sense.
They are still cars, and they still can transport children, they should not be exempt if they are to be street legal. if these Mid life criss folks want to drive really fast , they can go to a racetrack and rent time in a non street legal car.
Absolute Horse cookies.
Courts are there to Interpret the law, and to make judgements based on the laws in place. The Executive Branch enforces the law. If a ruling is deemed out of touch or unfair, then the Legislative branch steps in with rules to apply to areas that are not appropriately covered.
They are called precedents for a reason, they have a finding based in current law. Should the law be changed, then the precedents have to be revisited. Kinda convienient, but the long haul process never seems to satisfy the short term , , short fuse of the current GOP. Especially when the precedents and laws are not in their favor. They rally against radical and activist judges, and have for over 30 years. If the laws haven't changed in that amount of time, there is probably a reason other than the court system.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2696 posts, 
All in good fun.
From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3315 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36435 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 2614 posts, 
Isn't that obvious? I mean if you're left leaning, nothing. If you're right leaning, then it's having a candidate you don't like being elected again. Go back to 2004, did you want GWB reelected? That's how the right feels about Obama in 2012. 
. 
, 5640 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
